A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Ohio. Jud. Cond. R. 1.3
Comment
[1] It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting his or her personal business.
[2] A judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon the judge's personal knowledge. The judge may use official letterhead for such reference.
[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees, and by responding to inquiries from such entities concerning the professional qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office. However, a judge should not serve on any screening committee.
[4] Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to publications of for-profit entities. A judge should not permit anyone associated with the publication of such materials to exploit the judge's office in a manner that violates this rule or other applicable law. A judge who writes or contributes to a publication does not violate this rule by allowing his or her title and judicial experience to be used as a means of identification or to demonstrate an expertise in the subject-matter of the publication.
Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 1.3, in many respects, is comparable to Ohio Canon 4(A). However, Canon 4(A) uses the standard "lend the prestige of judicial office" as the test for a violation. Rule 1.3 adopts a test that prohibits the "abuse of judicial office." The test for a violation may be less restrictive than under the Ohio Code.
Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 1.3 is identical to Model Rule 1.3.
Comment [2] is less restrictive than the Model Rule comment in that it does not require the judge to indicate that the reference is personal, and the perception requirement is removed. Further, Comment [2] is consistent with Advisory Opinions 95-5 and 98-4 issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Comment [3] is clarified to advise that while a judge may participate in the process of judicial selection, participation as a member of a screening committee is prohibited.
Comment [4] regarding publications has been amended to provide more definitive guidance.